Following the Bonus Army disaster of 1932, a powerful group of pro-Nazi
financiers and businessmen decided to capitalize on the bitterness and
anger of an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 World War I veterans to create
their own private army and overthrow the administration of Franklin D.
Roosevelt.
They could think of no better man to lead that coup d'état than Marine
Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, the only American soldier to win two
Congressional Medals of Honor, and, more importantly, a good Republican.
Don't let the "girlie boys" name fool you. Even though the story
you are about to read has been glaringly omitted from the history books
and largely ignored by the mainstream news media, this man was - and still
is - a Marine legend.
An
American Coup d'État?
This appears pretty much the way it did in the
November, 1995 History Today.
The General
This remarkable man was Smedley Darlington Butler, retired U.S. Marine
Corps Major General. Butler is the sort of person for whom the word
"colorful" is woefully inadequate. Butler won America's
highest military award for bravery (the Congressional Medal of Honor) twice.
His style of warfare was unusual not only for his personal courage,
but for the energy he put into avoiding bloodshed when it was possible
to achieve his aims in other ways. Not surprisingly, this engendered a
remarkable loyalty among the men who served under him - and that loyalty
was why certain men asked Butler to lead a military attack on
Washington, D.C., with the goal of capturing President Roosevelt.
Butler was more than a remarkable soldier. He served as police
commissioner of Philadelphia during 1924-25 (on loan from the Marines),
in an attempt to enforce Prohibition. While the effort was a failure,
his insistence on enforcing the law against wealthy partygoers as well
as poor immigrants established his reputation as a man of high
integrity. He was not universally loved, but he was widely respected.
Butler is best remembered today for his oft-quoted statement in the
socialist newspaper Common Sense in 1935:
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua
for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I
brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests
in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit
companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard
Oil went its way unmolested.... Looking back on it, I felt I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.
In War Is A Racket, Butler argued for a powerful navy, but one
prohibited from traveling more than 200 miles from the U.S. coastline.
Military aircraft could travel no more than 500 miles from the U.S.
coast, and the army would be prohibited from leaving the United States.
Butler also proposed that all workers in defense industries, from the
lowest laborer to the highest executive, be limited to "$30 a
month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get." He also
proposed that a declaration of war should be passed by a plebiscite in
which only those subject to conscription would be eligible to vote.
From 1935 through 1937, Butler was a spokesman for the League Against
War and Fascism, a Communist-dominated organization of the time. He also
participated in the Third U.S. Congress Against War and Fascism, sharing
the platform with well-known leftists of the era, including Langston
Hughes, Heywood Broun, and Roger Baldwin. When the Spanish Civil War
(1936-39) threatened the collapse of the Soviet-supported Spanish
government, the League's pacifism evaporated, and they supported
intervention. Butler, however, remained true to his belief in
non-interventionism: "What the hell is it our business what's going
on in Spain?" But before Butler became involved in these causes, he
had already exposed a fascist plot against his own government.
The Plot
Butler had friends in the press and Congress, so he could not be ignored
when he came forward in late 1934 with a tale of conspiracy against
President Roosevelt, in which he had been asked to take a leading role.
At first glance, Butler seems an unlikely candidate for such a position.
While Butler was a Republican, in 1932 he campaigned for Roosevelt,
calling himself a "Republican-for-Ex-President Hoover."
(Butler had a poor relationship with Hoover going back to their time
together during the Boxer Rebellion.)
But there were good reasons why someone seeking to overthrow the U.S.
government would have wanted Butler involved. Butler was a powerful
symbol to many American soldiers and veterans - an enlisted man's
general, one that spoke out for their interests while on active duty,
and after retirement. Butler would have attracted men to his cause that
would not otherwise have participated in a march on Washington.
Butler would have been a good choice also because of his military
skills. His personal courage and tactical skill would have made him a
powerful commander of an irregular army. Finally, his ties of friendship
to many officers still on active duty might have undermined military
opposition to his force, as friends and colleagues sought to avoid a
direct confrontation with him.
Another reason that the plotters might have approached such an
unlikely candidate was that Butler was not regarded as a great
intellect. After World War I, the Marine Corps had began to emphasize a
new college-educated professionalism. Butler, one of the less educated
"bushwhacker" generals, might have seemed easy to manipulate.
Butler testified that bond trader Gerald MacGuire had approached him
in the summer of 1933. MacGuire claimed to represent wealthy Wall Street
broker Grayson Murphy, Singer sewing machine heir Robert Sterling Clark,
and other unnamed men of wealth. They asked Butler to speak publicly on
behalf of the gold standard, recently abandoned by President Roosevelt.
MacGuire's rationale for why Butler should ally himself with the gold
standard cause was that the veterans of World War I were due a bonus in
1945. As MacGuire told Butler, "We want to see the soldiers' bonus
paid in gold. We do not want the soldier to have rubber money or paper
money."
It appears that the plotters underestimated Butler's intelligence and
character. When this explanation failed to persuade Butler, MacGuire and
Clark offered him money, abandoning any pretense of civic-mindness.
Butler's sense of honor prevented him from speaking in favor of any
policy for mercenary reasons.
MacGuire eventually told Butler their real goal. MacGuire asked
Butler to lead an army of 500,000 veterans in a march on Washington,
D.C. The stated mission was to protect Roosevelt from other plotters,
and install a "secretary of general welfare" to "take all
the worries and details off of his shoulders…" But Butler saw
through their supposed concern for Roosevelt. He testified before
Congress that he told MacGuire:
[M]y interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get
these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, I am
going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will
have a real war right at home.…
Yes; and then you will put somebody in there you can run; is that the
idea? The President will go around and christen babies and dedicate
bridges, and kiss children. Mr. Roosevelt will never agree to that
himself.
Butler eventually deduced that the real goal was a coup d'état
to take Roosevelt captive, and force reinstatement of the gold standard,
the loss of which many wealthy Americans feared would lead to rapid
inflation. The plotters would keep Roosevelt as a figurehead until he
could be "encouraged" to retire.
That MacGuire had significant financial backing behind him seems
clear, considering the substantial bank savings books he showed to
Butler. What remains unclear is whether the names MacGuire dropped
(other than Robert Sterling Clark) were really involved, or
whether MacGuire was a con man.
MacGuire's claims and financial resources alone did not convince
Butler that such a conspiracy actually existed. The fulfillment of a
series of startling predictions by MacGuire did finally persuade Butler
that there was more than just hot air involved. MacGuire knew in advance
of significant personnel changes in the White House. He correctly
predicted the formation of the American Liberty League (the major
conservative opposition to Roosevelt), and the principal players in it.
Especially disturbing was that many of the supposed backers of the plot
were also members of the League. MacGuire's claim that the League
("villagers in the opera" of the scheme, in MacGuire's words)
was part of the plot could not be easily dismissed.
The American Liberty League was a successor to the highly successful
Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the lobbying organization
responsible for the repeal of the "Noble Experiment." From its
formation in 1918 until 1926, the AAPA made little progress, at least
partly because it had little money. But in 1926, money poured into the
AAPA from some of America's wealthiest men, including Pierre, Irenee,
and Lammot du Pont, John J. Raskob, and Charles H. Sabin. The AAPA spent
its new found wealth on distribution of literature, and on the formation
of a bewildering number of associated organizations. These associated
organizations gave the impression of a grassroots movement, rather than
a collection of millionaires feeding press releases to friendly
newspapers. The AAPA also rapidly took control of the Democratic Party,
with one of their supporters, Al Smith, receiving the 1928 Democratic
Presidential nomination. While AAPA had powerful friends within the
Republican Party, they never achieved control of it.
The AAPA's motivations were a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. The
stated concern was that Prohibition had done serious damage to the
principle of federalism - that the federal government's authority did
not include the police powers used to enforce Prohibition. But it
appears that this was not the only motivation, or even the reason most
important to the men who funded the AAPA. Like many other Americans,
these business leaders "found themselves unable to gratify what
seemed a natural, more or less innocent, desire without breaking a
law" (i.e., the consumption of alcoholic beverages). To
suddenly find themselves among the criminal classes was not pleasant to
a group who had always thought of themselves as law-abiding and
respectable members of American society. There is also strong evidence
that the backers of the AAPA saw Repeal as a method of reducing income
and corporate taxes, by taxing alcoholic beverages instead.
The AAPA went out of business at the end of 1933, with the end of
Prohibition. But within a year, from the same offices, with most of the
same backers, many of the same employees, and much of the same style, it
reappeared as the American Liberty League. Throughout the next six
years, it led the fight against the New Deal, arguing that much of
Roosevelt's program was contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Constitution. In an age when Hitler and Mussolini had commandeered
extraordinary economic powers, the fears that the American Liberty
League expressed about Roosevelt's vaguely similar gathering of economic
power could not be summarily dismissed.
The League, in spite of its impressive resources, was rapidly made to
appear "ridiculous or dangerous" or both by the Roosevelt
Administration. Most importantly, the leadership of the League was
largely rich men. The Depression-era gap between rich and poor had
become too wide, too obvious, and too painful for the League to be
credible to the majority of Americans. Butler's testimony before
Congress claimed that some of the people associated with the League were
the very ones that had approached him - including Grayson Murphy, the
League's treasurer.
In the depths of the Great Depression, in that nadir of despair
before Roosevelt gave his stirring first inaugural address in 1933,
America was awash in political groups identifying in greater or lesser
degrees with communism or fascism. Rep. Samuel Dickstein (D-NY),
concerned about the threat of such groups, persuaded the House of
Representatives to create the Special Committee to Investigate Nazi
Propaganda Activities in the United States. This committee investigated
Butler's charges in late 1934.
MacGuire, not surprisingly, denied that such a plot existed. Instead,
he claimed his activities had been political lobbying to preserve the
gold standard, but he quickly destroyed his credibility as a witness by
giving contradictory testimony. While the final report agreed with
Butler that there was evidence of a coup d'état plot against Roosevelt,
no further action was taken on it. The Committee's authority to subpoena
witnesses expired at the end of 1934, and the Justice Department started
no criminal investigation.
Part of the reason for the lack of prosecution of the alleged
plotters may have been the untimely death of the only man who could have
testified against the rest: Gerald MacGuire. He died at age 37 from
complications of pneumonia, less than a month after the Committee
released its report. MacGuire's physician claimed that his death was
partly the result of the stress of the charges made by Butler, but there
is no reason to assume that MacGuire's death was in any way suspicious.
The Committee's report excluded many of the most embarrassing names
given by MacGuire, and repeated by Butler. MacGuire had claimed that
1928 Democratic President candidate Al Smith, General Hugh Johnson (head
of Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration), General Douglas
MacArthur, and a number of other generals and admirals were privy to the
plot. Since Butler had no evidence of their involvement, other than
MacGuire's claims, it was certainly reasonable for the Committee to
exclude these details from the final report as "certain immaterial
and incompetent evidence." But in conjunction with MacGuire's
apparent advance knowledge of the details of internal White House staff
activities, it certainly suggests that if a coup was planned, it had
significant support within the Roosevelt Administration.
The News Media Downplays The Plot
The news media gave an inappropriately small amount of attention to the
report. Time magazine ridiculed Butler's claims. The week
following Butler's testimony, Time described it as a "Plot
Without Plotters," simply because the alleged plotters claimed
innocence. But Time admitted that Veterans of Foreign Wars
commander James Van Zandt confirmed that he, too, had been approached to
lead such a march on Washington.
The leftist magazine New Masses carried an article by John
Spivak that included wild claims of "Jewish financiers working with
fascist groups." Spivak's article spun an elaborate web involving
the American Jewish Congress, the Warburg family, "which originally
financed Hitler," the Hearst newspaper chain, the Morgan banking
firm, the du Ponts, a truly impressive list of prominent American Jewish
businessmen, and Nazi spies! Spivak's article raised some disturbing and
legitimate questions about why much of Butler's testimony was left out
of the final committee report. But these important concerns were
seriously undermined by Spivak's paranoid ravings. The left-of-center
magazines Nation and New Republic were unconcerned about
it, since in their view "fascism originated in pseudoradical mass
movements," and therefore could not come from a wealthy cabal.
Newspaper descriptions of the final report are also astonishing for
how lightly most treated it. A New York Times article about
subversion and foreign agitators started on the front page, but gave
only two paragraphs to the coup plot inside the paper. "It also
alleged that definite proof has been found that the much publicized
Fascist march on Washington... was actually contemplated." It was
not a major story.
The San Francisco Chronicle took the story more seriously. The
only headline with a larger type size that day concerned the recent
fatal crash of the airship Macon. The Chronicle carried an
Associated Press story headlined, "Justice Aids Probe Butler
Fascist Story." The first five paragraphs were devoted to Butler's
allegations. The Chronicle quoted the Committee report that it
"was able to verify all the pertinent statements by General Butler,
with the exception of the direct statement suggesting creation of the
organization."
A third newspaper sampled showed an even more astonishing lack of
interest than the New York Times: the Sacramento Bee used
a substantially different Associated Press wire story that emphasized
propaganda efforts by foreign agents. Another AP wire story, at the
bottom of page five, described Butler's allegations, taking the
Committee's report at face value. This wire story includes the
comforting knowledge that the committee found "no evidence to show
a connection between this effort" and any foreign government.
An apparently serious effort to overthrow the government, perhaps
with the support of some of America's wealthiest men, largely
substantiated by a Congressional committee, was mostly ignored. Why?
Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, wrote a book in
1939 about the concentration of American journalism. He claimed that,
"In 1934, 82 per cent of all dailies had a complete monopoly in
their communities." Newspaper chains, in Ickes' view, "control
a dangerously large share of the national daily circulation and in many
cities have no competition."
Ickes' book was largely devoted to proving that the major newspapers
of the United States were intentionally distorting the news, and in some
cases, directly lying. Ickes argued that newspaper editors did so in the
interests of both their advertisers and in defense of the capitalist
class. Ickes mentioned the Liberty League as one of the "propaganda
outfits" who were allied with the major newspapers. Indeed,the New
York Times, one of the papers that had downplayed the Committee's
report, had editorialized in favor of the Liberty League's formation.
Did newspapers and magazines onsciously play down the plot, because
it represented an embarrassment to people of influence? Or did editors
simply give it low visibility because they regarded it as an absurd
story?
We must consider another disturbing possibility. Butler was
associated with the loose alliance of progressive and populist forces
that were dragging Roosevelt towards the left. It is easy to forget that
for much of Roosevelt's first term as President from 1932-36, he was the
rope in a tug of war between conservative and progressive forces in
America. The popularity of men such as Senator Huey Long (D-Louisiana)
and the nationally known radio priest Father Coughlin-and the need to
short-circuit their rising political power-appears to have caused
Roosevelt's increasingly leftward movement in 1935-36.
Is it possible that Butler concocted this story as a way of creating
animosity towards conservatives by Roosevelt? If Butler had lied to the
Committee, and no such conspiracy was ever planned, why did MacGuire
apparently perjure himself before the Committee? Or, alternatively,
could leftward leaning members of the Roosevelt Administration have
manipulated Butler into believing that such a plot actually existed as a
way of creating animosity towards conservatives, thus dragging Roosevelt
to the left? Either theory could explain why MacGuire, Murphy, Clark, or
the other supposed plotters were never prosecuted.
Yet another possibility (though less likely) is that there was no
prosecution because Roosevelt's own advisors had taken part in the plot,
as MacGuire claimed. A criminal prosecution would have washed the
Roosevelt Administration's dirty laundry in public.
Why Is The Plot So Poorly Known?
Butler's account of the MacGuire plot was a very serious accusation. If
MacGuire had told Butler the truth, a large number of wealthy men had
made serious plans to overthrow representative government in the United
States - though their concern that Roosevelt was creating a government
in the style of Mussolini or Hitler, might provide some legitimate
reason for their actions. Why doesn't this plot appear in history books?
That conservatives might discount the plot is not unexpected; that
liberals have tended to ignore the plot is a little more surprising.
It is hard to imagine how different American politics was in the
1930s. The collapse of the world economy had shaken the faith of many
Americans in individualism and free market capitalism. Many
traditionalists, here and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and
National Socialism; many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism.
Prominent populists such as Huey Long and Father Coughlin sided with
progressives in support of isolationism, redistribution of wealth, and a
federal government that would play a more active role in the American
economy.
In hindsight, the moral and economic deficiencies of these various
collectivized systems are now clear. In 1934, however, people of good
will persuaded themselves that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were doing
good, and ignored the great evils that were already underway. To turn
over the rock exposing MacGuire's plot raises unpleasant questions about
the political sensibilities of both right and left in 1930s America.
How Secure Are The Institutions of Legal
Government In America?
How secure, indeed? It would be tempting to write off this entire matter
as a group of con men separating wealthy conservatives from their money
by pretending to hatch a plot against the Roosevelt Administration. But
there are too many disturbing pieces of evidence in this tale that
suggest that the Zeitgeist of the 1930s was not limited to
Europe.
If MacGuire's claims to Butler were true, some U.S. military
commanders were prepared to stand aside while 500,000 veterans marched
on Washington and took Roosevelt captive. (Between the World Wars, the
United States Army was so small that 500,000 veterans might have given
them a serious fight - even if every officer remained loyal to
Roosevelt.)
But unlike many European countries, American government was highly
decentralized in 1934, and this would have worked against any serious
military action against the legitimate government. Every state governor
had control of state militia units, armed with out of date, but still
serviceable military weapons.
In addition to the regularly organized state militias, the population
of the United States, then as now, was heavily armed with the sort of
weapons well suited to military operations. Whatever the advantages of
the plotters' army of 500,000 veterans, they would have been far
outnumbered by the unorganized militia of the United States - then as
now, consisting of every U.S. citizen between 18 and 45, and legally
obligated by state laws to fight at the order of the governor in the
event of insurrection, invasion, or war.
But in a nation that was suffering from the ravages of the Great
Depression, another model exists for what might have happened: the
Spanish Civil War. The divisions over religion in America were not as
dramatic as those that ripped apart Spanish society. But many Americans
were beginning to lose their faith in American institutions - as
evidenced by the growth of American Nazi and Communist movements during
the 1930s. It is frightening to think of what might have happened if a
general as capable as Butler had become the man on a white horse.
In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, delivered at
New York University in 1960 concerning the protections of the U.S. Bill
of Rights:
I cannot agree with those who think of the Bill of Rights as an 18th
century straitjacket, unsuited for this age…. The evils it guards
against are not only old, they are with us now, they exist today….
Experience all over the world has demonstrated, I fear, that the
distance between stable, orderly government and one that has been
taken over by force is not so great as we have assumed.
Indeed, the plot that Butler exposed - if what MacGuire claimed was true
- is a sobering reminder to Americans. We were not immune to the
sentiments that gave rise to totalitarian governments throughout the
world in the 1930s. We make a serious mistake when we assume, "It
can't happen here!"
Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a
Northern California manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. His
first book, By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of
Samuel McIlvaine, was published by Library Research Associates
(Monroe, NY) in 1990. Mr. Cramer's second book, For The Defense of
Themselves And The State: The Original Intent and Judicial
Interpretation of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms was published by
Praeger Publishers (Westport, Conn.) in 1994. Mr. Cramer recently
completed his B.A. in History at Sonoma State University.
Bibliography
Archer, Jules, The Plot To Seize The White House, (New York:
Hawthorn Books, 1973).
Brinkley, Alan, Voices of Protest, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1982).
Butler, Smedley D., War Is A Racket, (New York: Round Table
Press, 1935).
Cahn, Edmond, The Great Rights, (New York: Macmillan Co.,
1963).
Ickes, Harold L., America's House of Lords: An Inquiry into the
Freedom of the Press, (Rahway, N.J.: Harcourt, Brace & Co.,
1939).
New York Times, February 16, 1935; March 26, 1935.
Schmidt, Hans, Maverick Marine, (Lexington, Ky.: University
Press of Kentucky, 1987).
Sevareid, Eric, Not So Wild A Dream, (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1946).
Spivak, John L., "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy", New
Masses, January 29, 1935, 9-15; February 5, 1935, (page numbers
missing on the microfilm)..
Sacramento Bee, February 15, 1935.
San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 1935.
Time, 24:23 [December 3, 1934].
U.S. House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American
Activities, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and
Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities, Hearings
73-D.C.-6, Part 1, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1935).
U.S. House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American
Activities, Public Statement, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1934).
Wolfskill, George, The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of
the American Liberty League, 1934-1940, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1962).
Investigation of Un-American Activites: (part 1 of) Testimony by Gerald
C. MacGuire (pages 39-47)
John Spivak, "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy: Testimony that the
Dickstein MacCormack Committee Suppressed," New , Jan 29, 1935
John Spivak, "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy: Morgan Pulls the
Strings," New Masses, Feb. 5, 1935
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/spivak-New.pdf
